Those detained by Police over the weekend for questioning did not make any application to hold a public meeting, says Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimara.

In a statement release this evening Bainimarama said:

The Public Order Act amongst other provisions, requires any group wanting to hold a public meeting to apply for a permit from the Police before the proposed event. In this case, no application was made so the Police are entirely within their rights to question those who have allegedly contravened these provisions.

Bainimarama said that those who attended this gathering were lawfully detained for questioning and there have been no allegations of any of their human rights being breached while in detention.

These included the right to legal counsel. They were released within the 48 hours that the law prescribes as the limit at which they can be detained without appearing in court.

Bainimarama said a notable double standard was being adopted by certain countries in relation to this matter.

They either suspend certain rights themselves when incarcerating their citizens or other nationals and in some instances, even on the mere suspicion of a remote threat to their national security. They have adopted practices and laws that are abhorrent to internationally accepted human rights values and principles. Other nations turn a blind eye to or are mute on similar behaviour on the part of their friends and allies.

The Prime Minsiter said that Fiji had a sovereign right to make its own laws and in the case of the Public Order Act.

It (POA) exists because of our colonial past and an unfortunate history of civil unrest in post independent Fiji which cannot be repeated. The statute in question is to ensure law and order, protect our people and maintain the health of our economy on which the welfare of every Fijian depends. Source: Newswire Fiji

By VICTOR LAL
The Fiji Sun (December 2006)

A coup is a coup!

Why one law for Pakistan, and another for Fiji?

If there ever was hypocrisy and double standard in international politics that made one choke with disgust it was the joint statement issued by Uncle Sam’s world sheriff Condoleeza Rice and Alex Downer, the puppeteer of South Pacific’s muscular man John Howard in Washington where the two jointly called on the Fiji military to return the country immediately to the elected Government of the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase.

In order to highlight international double standards, we cannot but once again draw parallel with General Pervez Musarraf of Pakistan who, like Commodore Bainimarama, had seized power in October 1999 after the democratically elected Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif had dismissed Mr Musharaff as the Chief of Army Staff while the general was visiting Sri Lanka. Mr Nawaz was later thrown in prison and tried by Pakistan’s Anti-Terrorism Courts, which sentenced him to several life sentences for corruption, hijacking, tax evasion, embezzlement, and terrorism in 2000.

The military government agreed to commute his sentence from life in prison to exile in Saudi Arabia. On 12 May 2000, eight days before George Speight’s failed coup, the Supreme Court of Pakistan ruled that the 1999 coup that brought Mr Musharraf to power was justified, but set a timetable for a return to democracy within three years. The Chief Justice Irshad Hasan Khan said the coup was justified on grounds of necessity, because of corruption and misrule, the bad shape of the economy in October 1999, and that the General’s sacking was illegal. Mr Musharraf asked: Why did Nawaz Sharif do what he did? Why did he commit political suicide? Whatever the reason, Mr Sharif committed political suicide.

In his book, In the Line of Fire, Mr Musharraf states that whenever there is a tussle between the president and the prime minister in his country, all roads lead to the general headquarters of the army. It is not unusual for Pakistanis and the intelligentsia to approach the army chief and ask him to save the nation. The spirit of loyalty is instilled deeply in all ranks of the Pakistani army. According to him, “At the lower ranks loyalty is toward the commander, and his word is to be obeyed without question. At the senior command level is a larger sense of loyalty to a common cause or toward protection of the nation. The senior commanders had to decide whether their loyalty to a blundering prime minister was stronger than their loyalty to their own chief and their patriotism and love for the nation and its people.” At the end of the day, the army took action in favour of “their higher sense of loyalty to Pakistan and in accordance with what the nation would have desired them to do”. He declared: “I am proud of my army and the spontaneous support displayed by the Pakistani masses, who placed their trust in me to steer the nation to safety and prosperity.”

The General called in his close army colleagues. They agreed that Pakistan should remain a constitutional state, but they needed to restore their damaged constitution and create a transition government. They already had a president, but the presidency was a reduced post; what was needed was a head of government. Under the Pakistan Constitution the prime minister is the chief executive of the country and head of government. On 3 October 1999 one of Pakistan’s most distinguished constitutional lawyers, Shariffudin Pirzada, came up with an eminently sensible solution to General Musharaff: keep the constitution operational, except for a few clauses, which could be temporarily suspended. General Musharraf decided neither to abrogate the Constitution nor to impose martial law. He however now decided to become chief executive and head of government. The army top brass felt that given the circumstances that had been forced upon the army, there had been no option but to remove the Sharif government.

Mr Musharraf also prepared a draft speech to be delivered on 17 October 1999. At the same time, he started selecting his Cabinet and other crucial members of his team. The only criteria he had were an impeccable reputation and a successful track record. To select his team he set up a committee of top army officers to identify and interview people, and then create a short list of three for each portfolio. Mr Musharraf interviewed each of the finalists himself and made the decision. On 17 October 1999 he spoke to the nation and the world, declaring that he was forced to take over the country, and was determined to take it ahead at full sail, promising to respond to the Pakistanis’ cry to punish their country’s corrupt and criminal rulers and politicians. It was not long when Mr Musharraf in 2000 appointed the current Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz, who was than Finance Minister, as the new PM. It was a fait accompli, the annoucement made at a private dinner party to which Mr Aziz was invited to: “Let us give a good round of applause to the new prime minister,” Mr Musharraf told his dinner guests.

And it was not long before the hypocrisy and double standard of the international community came to the fore. All those finger-jabing at Commodore Bainimarama are jostling to become the General’s best friend, especially the United States, Australia, New Zealand, Great Britain, the United Nations, and the European Parliament. Since the Fiji coup, the European Parliament has been piling up one sanction after another on us. Yet, in September 2006, it welcomed Mr Musharraf to its Parliament, where the General met with the leaders of its political groups and President Josep Borrell. He told Mr Borrell and the European parliamentarians to see Pakistan as a key ally in the war on terror and that the European Parliament could help the European Union and Pakistan increase trade links. Mr Musharraf also assured them that he would continue to keep fighting the “Talibanisation” of parts of Pakistan.

And he wanted to create a moderate, religious and tolerant nation, despite the fact that there is “democratic deficit” in Pakistan (where there are no democratic elections and no separation between the military and politics) and lack of religious tolerance. When questioned about his own future as a General and President, he said, “I’ll take decision in 2007 according to the constitution of Pakistan”. He was sent of as a great friend of the European parliamentarians in South Asia.

Earlier, in June, Ms Rice had visited Pakistan as ‘a good friend’ of that country. While welcoming her, the Pakistani Foreign Minister Khursid Kasuri told a press conference that Ms Rice “has played an important role in the positive evolution of Pakistan-United States ties over the past five years, working towards a broad-based, long-term and sustainable”. Her visit was meant to take the evolving relationship forward to a higher level, to strengthen the ‘Strategic Partnership’ established during President Bush’s visit to that country in March 2006. She also called upon General Musharraf, and looked forward to receiving Mr Kasuri in Washington.

She told her adoring fans, many of them who had ridden to power on the back of the General’s October 1999 coup: “Pakistan is a country that is going through a tremendous transition. It is a country that, as President Musharraf has said, has adopted a course of enlightened moderation. It is a course that not only the United States supports but that is supported worldwide. And we have had a discussion of the role that the further democratization of Pakistan will play on that road to enlightened moderation, including the importance of the upcoming elections in 2007, and we look forward to further discussions of those matters.”

In October 2005 General Musharraf came on the six-day official visit to the South Pacific. Mr John Howard welcomed the General to a luncheon in Australian Parliament, and praised him endlessly. He told the Pakistani General: ‘This is the first occasion that we have been graced with a visit to our country by a Pakistani head of state, who of course is also head of government of that country. And also I salute somebody in President Musharraf who has led a transition of his country to a democratic state.” Mr Howard even made a return visit to Pakistan, meeting with the ‘dinner appointed PM’, Mr Aziz.

Mr Howard’s counterpart, Helen Clark, was equally salivating with praise of Mr Musharraf, and announced several joint initiatives between New Zealand and Pakistani, including several scholarships for Pakistanis. There was none of those threats and abuses that have been heaped on Commodore Bainimarama.

Mr Musharraf and his close family, army officers, and political appointees have not been slapped with travel bans. None of the countries have suspended military aid, and cut sporting contacts with Pakistan. If any thing, the international community has given General Musharraf the general stamp of approval for his October 1999 coup.

Hence, if I were Commodore Bainimarama, I would tell all these hypocritical countries to simply go to hell. We cannot have two rules, one for Pakistan and one for Fiji. A coup is a coup. Both Mr Qarase and Mr Sharif decided to commit political suicide by attempting to sack their respective heads of the armed forces, without considering the consequences.

The world should await the report of the promised Commission into corruption in Fiji. Unlike Mr Sharif, Mr Qarase has not been exiled to Australia or Africa – yet!.

September 12, 2016

MEDIA RELEASE
 
NFP condemns intimidation and political persecution
 
The Management Board of the National Federation Party decided that the Parliamentary caucus of the NFP boycotts the President's address for the new term of Parliament- in protest over the continuing political persecution and intimidation of the Opposition and the draconian muzzling of free expression and assembly in Fiji.
 
As a result NFP Leader Honourable Professor Biman Prasad and NFP Parliamentary Whip Honourable Prem Singh did not attend today’s opening of Parliament.

The Management Board chaired by Party President Honourable Roko Tupou Draunidalo were strongly of the view that the Party’s MPs were not elected to be props for the Fiji First Government's farcical democracy.

Just this weekend, one Opposition Member of Parliament and NFP Leader; a Trade Unionist who was a former NFP Leader; 2 members of the SODELPA party and a NGO member were arrested so swiftly for a meeting that took place a week or so ago.

The Management Board strongly condemned the arrests and detention as intimidation and political persecution in a country whose Government prides itself as promoting “true democracy, equal citizenry and fundamental freedoms”. Nothing can be further from the truth.
 
We firmly believe that this is just a continuation of many other offensive actions against the Opposition and the people of Fiji since the last general elections, such as:

1. The suspension of two Opposition Members of Parliament for excessive periods from Parliament depriving them of the ability to serve their constituents;

1. The amendment of the Parliamentary Standing Orders to allow it to pursue a one-sided legislative agenda and to ignore the views of the Opposition and the public;

1. The amendment of the Parliamentary Standing Orders by the Government to remove the Hon. Professor Biman Prasad as Chair of the Public Accounts Committee


2. The excessive use of the parliamentary standing order 51 by the Government to fast-track legislation for which there is no need, thereby ensuring a lack of proper Parliamentary scrutiny or consultation for many laws that it enacts’

 
5. The refusal of the Government to facilitate an office of independent Parliamentary counsel;
6. The preservation of various draconian Decrees and Promulgations in the 2013 Constitution including the decrees regulating the media, electoral and political party issues; 
 
7. The lack of urgency by the Government to implement the recommendations of the reports of the Multi Observer Group and the Electoral Commission before the 2018 elections; and
 
8. The lack of any amendment or improvement to those Decrees particularly as the Attorney General remains the Minister for Elections while being the Secretary General of the Fiji First political party.
 
The eyes of the world have been on Fiji this weekend. The Government’s lack of commitment to democratic principles and processes is clear. The people will give their verdict in due course.
 
Hon Roko Tupou Draunidalo
President
 
 

THE DIRE WARNING of potential political and racial violence directed to the then military dictator and coupist Sitiveni Rabuka following the imposition of his racist 1990 Constitution of Fiji would have seen me thrown in one of the police cells which became "home" to Sodela leader Sitiveni Rabuka, NFP leader Biman Singh, FLP leader Mahendra Chaudhry, trade unionist Attar Singh, former politician Tupeni Baba, and Dialogue Fiji's Jone Dakuvula. They were detained by Fiji Police for comments they allegedly uttered "that could affect the safety and security of all Fijians" during a panel discussion on the 2013 Constitution of Fiji, organized by Pacific Dialogue in Suva last Monday.

In fact, I have made no secret of my views on the various Constitutions of Fiji for nearly three decades. In my books, academic articles, seminars, conferences, television interviews, and newspaper opinion columns I have always commented on the strengths and weaknesses of the 1970, 1990, 1997 and 2013 Constitutions of Fiji.

The 1970 Constitution:

While researching and writing on race, ethnicity, tribalism, politics and constitutionalism in Fiji, I had concluded as follows: "A deeper study of the decision at the London constitutional talks shows that fear of Fijians being swamped by the majority Indians was an oversimplification. Apparently no consideration had been given to future population trends which could result in Indians becoming a minority in Fiji...If there were any losers in the long, tortuous, and complex struggle for political power, it was not the chosen petit-bourgeois Indian leaders but
the ordinary Indian who had placed faith and hope in the London constitutional talks. The 1970 Constitution, as succeeding chapters show, left a legacy of hatred and mistrust among the different races..the euphoria of independence was only the beginning of a long journey for Indians who had marched from plantation to politics.
'Indians Go Home' became a familiar chant of the native Fijians, led by Sakiasi Butadroka. Many feared that another Uganda (spectre of Fijian Idi Amin) or South Africa (political apartheid) was in the making in South Pacific.

During the course of my research, I had taken exception to Professor Brij Lal's book Politics in Fiji in which he had held Fiji as a model in race relations for the world to embrace; in 1985, I had titled my research Fiji's Racial Politics: The Coming Coup. Two years later, Rabuka, Inoke Kubuabola, Filipe Bole, Ratu Finau Mara and others struck, reducing Indo-Fijians to second class citizens in the country of their birth, with both Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau endorsing the racist 1990 Constitution. The 1987 coups also saw Professor Yash Ghai and I clash on British TV and later at Chatham House in London on the strength and weakness of the 1970 Constitution.

The 1990 Constitution:

This Constitution brought me into direct conflict with Mara, Ganilau and Rabuka when the late Professor Asesela Ravuvu and I exchanged sharp words at the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office seminar in London on the constitutional developments in Fiji after the 1987 coups. Also present across the table was Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, then Rabuka's High Commissioner to London, and later the post-Ghai constitution President of Fiji. It was at this seminar where I repeated what I had told the British television audience: "The 1987 coups raise one and only question: how many generation does one have to wait to become a native. My ancestors were coolie Indians, not ME or my fellow Indo-Fijians." Defending the nauseating racial and constitutional developments was Isikeli Mataitoga, later High Court judge after the Bainimarama coup. Mataitoga is now ensconced in Japan as Fiji's ambassador.

The 1990 Constitution also led to arrests, beatings, and tortures when a group of Indo-Fijians, led by Dr Anirudh Singh, set fire to this Constitution in public as a mark of protest. In our fight for Indo-Fijian rights was a fellow young traveller Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum, later FFP Attorney-General and Minister for Justice. He is credited as one of the architects of the 2013 Constitution of Fiji.

The 1997 Constitution: Mandatory Power-Sharing MUST GO!

Shortly after the release of the deposed Prime Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry, I had written a six part series in Fiji's Daily Post. In Part Three,  The 1997 Constitution: Beauty and the Beast, I had written as follows: 'The 1997 Constitution is arguably one of the best constitutional documents Fiji has ever had in attempting to create a truly multi-racial society. As constitutional expert Yash Ghai, a former legal adviser to the NFLP/FLP Coalition, has pointed out, ‘the purpose of the 1997 Constitution is to provide a basis, on which all of Fiji’s communities could agree, for the peoples of Fiji to live together under a system of government. It is intended to bring to an end the social and political statements that had resulted from the 1987 coups and the constitutional system that was established as a consequence of the coups’.

I had continued as follows: We had likened the inability of the Fiji Labour Party to act decisively over the rift between the Fijian Association Party (FAP) and the Party of National Unity (PANU), who made up Chaudhry’s Peoples Coalition Government, to that of ‘a castrated political bull’ in a ‘constitutional China shop’. We had blamed the provisions of the 1997 Constitution of Fiji, with its provisions for mandatory power sharing, and the new electoral system, as the overreaching reasons for Chaudhry Government’s downfall, where the religious amorals met the political amorals from different political parties and races in a grand conspiracy to make Fiji, ‘The Way The World Shouldn’t Be’.

We now call upon the Fiji Labour Party to dissolve the Peoples Coalition and return to the negotiating constitutional table to iron out some of the defects in the 1997 Constitution of Fiji. Fiji’s future lies in the proliferation of multi-racial political parties and not in enforced marriages of convenience with racially-based and overtly pseudo nationalistic Fijian and Indo-Fijian parties. When the very first part of the series appeared, I received several abusive and death-threatening e-mails from cowards writing under pseudo names. They accused me of peddling the aims and objectives of the Fiji Labour Party (FLP).  

To my detractors, I would like to inform you that I have never been a member of the FLP nor have voted for them in my life. I am not a banner wielding and ‘messianic fan’ of the deposed Prime Minister Mahendra Pal Chaudhry. He is partly to be blamed for the mess that we are in, but as we have argued in these columns, for totally different reasons.  

As I had pointed out elsewhere, in response to my ‘misguided countryman’, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola, and other like-minded individuals, who attacked me last year for my repeated calls for multi-party democracy in Fiji, I come from a political family who had carried in its veins the multi-racial philosophies of the Alliance Party, which I now find was a great sham and a cover to keep the other non-Fijian races out of political power. In fact, the Alliance Party’s concept of multi-racialism, where power and privilege was to ultimately rest in the hands of the Fijian chiefly families, and the Fijian political elite, had failed to produce a truly multi-racial, multi-cultural, and multi-religious Fiji. 

The 2013 Constitution

I had welcomed certain provisions in the Constitution but I had objected to the IMMUNITY CLAUSE, arguing that this will perpetuate the coup culture in Fiji. Also, the Immunity Clause would mean that Rabuka would never be brought to trial for his crimes against the Indo-Fijians. Those who are familiar with my writings could accuse me of sharing very similar views with Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum and Frank Bainimarama on the role and place of the Great Council of Chiefs in national politics; for I had argued all these years that the chiefs should have a ceremonial and not constitutional role in the Constitution of Fiji. I had championed for dual citizenship and that every person born in Fiji must be called FIJIAN.

Shortly after the 2006 coup, I had led an attack against the Fiji Law Society and its president Davenesh Sharma,including against Graham Leung, on the role of judges in a revolution. I argued in my then Fiji Sun column that legally Justice Nazhat Shameem was correct to chair the Judicial Services Commission which saw the appointment of Justice Anthony Gates as acting Chief Justice. I also publicly condemned and called for the removal of Justice Gordon Ward as president of the Fiji Court of Appeal for trying to scupper the functioning of the judiciary. I also wrote a scathing piece against Justice Coventry and Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi. Based on highly confidential judicial memos etc I called for Coventry's resignation from the Bench. The rest is history.

But I am not alone in commenting on the Constitutions of Fiji. Look at what Frank Bainimarama had said and done to the 1997 Constitution. The former judge Madam Nazhat Shameem also critiqued Citizens Constitutional Forum's criticism of the 2013 Constitution, notably on the Judiciary.